Does the Bible contradict itself?

[Difflugia]

there cannot be any contradiction

And yet there are.

You need to prove that.

OK. At most two of the following three can be true:

• The Bible is inerrant.
• Ecclesiastes 9:25—"For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know nothing. They also have no more reward, because the memory of them is forgotten."
• 1 Samuel 28:15—"And Samuel said to Saul, 'Why have you disturbed me, to bring me up?'"

The common Witness apologetic tack is to claim that the biblical narrator is wrong and it's not really Samuel that "said" this thing to Saul. In fact, the NWT puts scare quotes around Samuel's name wherever we see it in the story:



This kind of apologetic trick is fine if we're allowed to believe that the biblical narrator is wrong, but this is TD&D, where the entire Bible must be treated as authoritative. With that in mind, here's the question for debate:

Can Ecclesiastes 9 and 1 Samuel 28 be harmonized if both must be inerrant and authoritative? Or do they contradict such that one or the other must be changed?

[Difflugia]

In conclusion, from a purely textual standpoint, it seems difficult to reconcile both passages as being inerrant without modifying or reinterpreting the meaning of one of them.

ChatGPT, I presume?

[William]

[Replying to Bible_Student in post #58]

Inerrancy is Implicit: The debate over whether Ecclesiastes 9:5 and 1 Samuel 28:15 can be harmonized inherently involves the issue of biblical inerrancy, as reconciling them depends on the belief that the Bible is without error.

Avoiding the Contradiction: By dismissing inerrancy as irrelevant, the real challenge of explaining how both passages can be true without contradiction is being sidestepped.

Core of the Debate: The question of whether these passages contradict each other directly touches on inerrancy, as contradictions would undermine the belief that the Bible is entirely accurate.

Framing the Discussion: If the discussion isn’t about inerrancy, then it’s unclear on what basis these passages are being evaluated or harmonized without questioning their literal truth.

The Writer’s Belief: Even if the author of 1 Samuel was aware of Jewish laws and teachings about the dead, the text itself presents Samuel as speaking. There is no indication in the passage that the narrator questions whether it is truly Samuel, which suggests the writer was not explicitly doubting the reality of the event.

Contradiction in the Narrative: The issue is not solely about whether Jewish beliefs at the time held that the dead were unconscious. The problem lies in the narrative itself, which portrays Samuel as aware and speaking. If the Bible is inerrant, the fact that Samuel is depicted as conscious conflicts with passages like Ecclesiastes 9:5 that claim the dead know nothing.

Contextual Understanding: While context is important, it doesn’t resolve the core issue—the contradiction between two biblical accounts. One text portrays the dead as conscious and able to speak, while the other depicts them as unconscious, creating a theological tension that cannot be easily dismissed by appealing to context alone.

Avoiding the Main Issue: The focus should remain on whether these passages contradict each other and whether they can be harmonized without undermining the Bible’s inerrancy. Simply questioning whether someone understands context does not resolve the textual conflict.

[William]

In conclusion, from a purely textual standpoint, it seems difficult to reconcile both passages as being inerrant without modifying or reinterpreting the meaning of one of them.

ChatGPT, I presume?

Not entirely. More a case of co-creation. Do you have a problem with the content?

[Bible_Student]

[Replying to Bible_Student in post #58]

Inerrancy is Implicit: The debate over whether and can be harmonized inherently involves the issue of biblical inerrancy, as reconciling them depends on the belief that the Bible is without error.

Avoiding the Contradiction: By dismissing inerrancy as irrelevant, the real challenge of explaining how both passages can be true without contradiction is being sidestepped.

Core of the Debate: The question of whether these passages contradict each other directly touches on inerrancy, as contradictions would undermine the belief that the Bible is entirely accurate.

Framing the Discussion: If the discussion isn’t about inerrancy, then it’s unclear on what basis these passages are being evaluated or harmonized without questioning their literal truth.

The Writer’s Belief: Even if the author of 1 Samuel was aware of Jewish laws and teachings about the dead, the text itself presents Samuel as speaking. There is no indication in the passage that the narrator questions whether it is truly Samuel, which suggests the writer was not explicitly doubting the reality of the event.

Contradiction in the Narrative: The issue is not solely about whether Jewish beliefs at the time held that the dead were unconscious. The problem lies in the narrative itself, which portrays Samuel as aware and speaking. If the Bible is inerrant, the fact that Samuel is depicted as conscious conflicts with passages like that claim the dead know nothing.

Contextual Understanding: While context is important, it doesn’t resolve the core issue—the contradiction between two biblical accounts. One text portrays the dead as conscious and able to speak, while the other depicts them as unconscious, creating a theological tension that cannot be easily dismissed by appealing to context alone.

Avoiding the Main Issue: The focus should remain on whether these passages contradict each other and whether they can be harmonized without undermining the Bible’s inerrancy. Simply questioning whether someone understands context does not resolve the textual conflict.

While the concept of the Bible's inerrancy is linked to the presence of contradictions within it, that is not the focus of our current discussion. This analysis is solely concerned with examining a claimed contradiction. It seems that demonstrating contradictions in the Bible could potentially challenge the idea of inerrancy, but that is beyond the scope of this particular discussion.

[William]

[Replying to Bible_Student in post #60]

Jewish Context Still Presents a Problem: Even if we accept the need to interpret 1 Samuel 28 from the perspective of Jewish beliefs at the time, the text still clearly portrays Samuel as conscious and speaking. The audience would likely have understood this passage literally, as there is no suggestion in the narrative that it was anything other than Samuel.

Jewish Beliefs on the Afterlife: While it's true that Jewish beliefs about the afterlife were evolving, Ecclesiastes 9:5 represents a clear stance on the dead being unconscious. This creates a theological conflict that still needs addressing. The context doesn't erase the tension between these two verses, even if the audience at the time had a different understanding.

Literal Meaning vs. Interpretation: If the literal reading of 1 Samuel 28 shows Samuel speaking after death, then regardless of how the author or audience might have understood it, the contradiction with other passages about the dead being unconscious remains. Context doesn't necessarily resolve this contradiction.

Understanding Doesn't Resolve the Contradiction: While understanding Jewish concepts and context is important, the central issue is whether these two passages can both be true without creating a contradiction, especially under the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

[William]

[Replying to Bible_Student in post #64]

Contradiction is Central to Inerrancy: While you may argue that this discussion isn’t about biblical inerrancy, the presence of contradictions directly challenges the belief in inerrancy. Demonstrating contradictions in scripture necessarily raises questions about the Bible’s perfection and accuracy.

Contradiction as the Core Issue: If the focus is solely on whether Ecclesiastes 9:5 and 1 Samuel 28 contradict each other, then the discussion still implicates inerrancy, because resolving the contradiction involves either acknowledging error or explaining it away. Both issues are intertwined.

Cannot Separate Inerrancy and Contradictions: Even if the debate is framed as analyzing a specific contradiction, it is impossible to separate the discussion from the larger doctrine of inerrancy. Addressing contradictions implicitly questions whether the Bible can be regarded as completely accurate and without error.

Resolution Requires Addressing Inerrancy: To resolve this supposed contradiction, one must either defend the inerrancy of both passages or accept that contradictions exist. In either case, the inerrancy of scripture is unavoidably part of the discussion.

[Bible_Student]

When someone who doubts biblical inspiration and inerrancy points out a contradiction, those of us who uphold these beliefs view the contradiction as merely apparent, not actual.

Different perspectives arise from both sides of the debate, shaped by varying angles and pre-existing assumptions. Nevertheless, the context of the scripture remains a shared element, a common point. Even an honest atheist cannot ignore the context in their interpretation of a text.

It is worthwhile to revisit these questions:

Was the author of 1 Samuel a Jew familiar with the law?
Did this author believe that the dead could be contacted by spiritists?
Did this author think a deceased prophet of Jehovah would engage in a spiritualist session if he existed somewhere?

Exploring other questions like these can provide the context for 1 Samuel 28. If the answers to these questions do not confirm that the "Samuel" mentioned was truly considered the deceased prophet of Jehovah by the writer, then the "contradiction" is not real.

[Difflugia]

In conclusion, from a purely textual standpoint, it seems difficult to reconcile both passages as being inerrant without modifying or reinterpreting the meaning of one of them.

ChatGPT, I presume?

Not entirely. More a case of co-creation. Do you have a problem with the content?

Not at all. If it's substantially ChatGPT, I'd appreciate an attribution or description of your method, but I feel like it added to the conversation.

[William]

In conclusion, from a purely textual standpoint, it seems difficult to reconcile both passages as being inerrant without modifying or reinterpreting the meaning of one of them.

ChatGPT, I presume?

Not entirely. More a case of co-creation. Do you have a problem with the content?

Not at all. If it's substantially ChatGPT, I'd appreciate an attribution or description of your method, but I feel like it added to the conversation.

No it is not substantially GPT. It is the result of the interaction and feedback process.
If it were mainly just GPT, it would be a lot more wordy.
I agree such adds to the conversation, which is why it is offered for consideration. If there are tools available, we have something of a duty to use them for such productiveness.

[William]

[Replying to Bible_Student in post #67]

Apparent vs. Actual Contradiction: While believers may view contradictions as merely apparent, this approach assumes a prior commitment to inerrancy. From an outside perspective, the contradiction is real unless convincingly harmonized. The difference in viewpoints stems from this pre-existing belief.

Context Doesn't Eliminate the Conflict: Even considering context, the text of 1 Samuel 28 presents Samuel as conscious and communicating. The narrative does not suggest doubt or that the author questioned whether this was truly Samuel. Context alone cannot resolve the issue if the passage presents an event that contradicts Ecclesiastes.

Author’s Jewish Beliefs: The author of 1 Samuel may have been familiar with Jewish laws against spiritism, but the text still depicts Samuel speaking. Whether the author believed in spiritism is speculative; the plain reading of the text indicates that the narrator accepts it was Samuel.

Harmonization Still Requires Inerrancy: Even if we ask questions about the author's beliefs, it remains challenging to claim the contradiction is not real without imposing external theological assumptions. If the Bible is inerrant, then any apparent contradiction should be resolved through a clear and coherent explanation, which the context in itself does not fully provide.